Should the US split into different countries?

[Taverner]

All empires fall. The US will be no exception. Now she may have some good years left in her, I don't know. Very probable she does.

But at some point the US will fall, and will either exist in some other form (sort of like Roman Empire => Italy) or split up (USSR comes to mind.)

So is now the time for this to happen?

[cliffordu]

1. Sure. Just as long as I don't have to live in dumbfuckistan

[Kalyke]

43. If there's a rural area near your town, you'll have to live near it.

All states are purple.

[Hippo_Tron]

142. I think people from Vermont, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island might beg to differ

Obama won every county in those states.

[Fading Captain]

166. I used to say dumb things like you

Before I worked in a small town in an rural area.

[mainegreen]

2. And give the world to the Chinese? No thanks.

[Taverner]

7. Too late for that one...

Bush pretty much sealed that deal...with a lot of help from Clinton

[Occam Bandage]

23. They're on even shakier ground than we are.

I'd say their odds of collapsing in the next twenty years are at least ten times what ours is. I think their general trajectory is, long-term, better than ours, but I also think they have a much higher risk of catastrophic collapse.

[arcadian]

35. The Chinese are scrambling all over the world for resources.

They are buying scrap metal, anything. An emerging nation with 1 billion+ people and extremely limited resources = time bomb. They should have focused more on agrarianism. Same advise goes to us.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. That's why they are spreading across to get resources

and their industrial production is up and ours down

Oh and building a blue navy from hell

(so are the Indians, but that is another matter)

Recommend you find a copy of Paul Kennedy's the Rise and Fall of Empires and read it carefully

[Hugabear]

65. China has existed for thousands of years. You really think they're going to fall apart now?

China is one of the most stable countries in the history of the entire world. Sure, they've had many different forms of government over the past few thousand years, but they've pretty much remained intact for a very long time.

[Occam Bandage]

73. Only by a very elementary view of Chinese history is China historically "stable."

"China" historically should not be considered a single nation, but is rather should be considered a common name for a series of empires dominating a continent (in Chinese, after all, "China" is 中国, or "zhongguo," meaning "the Central Kingdom." 中国 simply meant the civilized center of the world, rather than denoting ethnic China; 汉, or "han" is the word for the concept of the Chinese nation.)

China has many times unified under different kingdoms of different nationalities, and it has many times fractured and plunged into long periods of disunity, with many different kingdoms coexisting in different areas. A good analogue for Chinese history would be to consider European history, if the Roman Empire were to have reformed under the Gauls after a long period of Gallic conquest, and then were to have fallen again, and then reformed under the Romans again, and then have collapsed in civil war, and then was partially re-formed a century later, half under the Gauls and half under the Greeks, and then were to have been conquered outright by the Vikings for a few hundred years, and so on and so forth for millennia. Under this situation, we'd probably be calling it "Rome" still, and its people would all still consider themselves Roman (but of varying ethnicity), but to call it stable is a bit much. The only reason China looks stable in retrospect is that, lacking the criss-crossing mountains, indenting coastlines, deep forests, and many uncrossable rivers of Europe (but being bounded by oceans and impassible mountains and deserts), the empires that existed in Chinese history often tended to rule much the same area successively. Even still, the borders of China have waxed and waned with the fortunes of wars and rebellions; it is purely an accident of history that, say, Korea is not part of China but Xinjiang province is.

Anyway, that has very little to do with the ability of a country to collapse. I do not see a Chinese collapse as being the creation of multiple Chinese states, but rather as the death of the Communist government (possibly accompanied by a great deal of violence), along with a sustained economic crisis to make our Great Depression look pleasant.

[B Whale]

Completely untrue. you are

referring to the Chinese dynasties by the Han chinese. Present china spreads far beyond those borders.

Why do you think the great wall of china is in the middle of china not at the edge of china?

[Deja Q]

83. If people reject the cheap toxic products en masse...

They are as much part of the 'global economy' as anyone else. This is why my ears perk up when President Obama keeps saying how we're all in this together and how we all have to do our part. China has obligations it needs to fulfil too. As does the US.

:shrug:

[Terry in Austin]

80. Oh, like it was ours to give!

But you know, you may have hit on a big part of the problem...

:hide:

[Occam Bandage]

82. It's neither ours to give nor theirs to take.

That doesn't stop us from having it or them from taking it.

[B Whale]

112. So at the moment the US owns the world and you don't want

to give it away?

What an arrogant assumptive position to take.

[mainegreen]

133. Bullshit. Our goverment is better than theirs. We may be bad, but they are evil.

Screw 'every culture is equal'. Not true.

Ours is a beacon of freedom, even during the dark Bush years, our government is a MILLION times better than theirs. The Chinese government is an oppressive, cruel, oligarchy.

[B Whale]

135. i agree. Assumptive that you equated 'America' with 'ruling the world'

though was my point. Very arrogant i thought

[mainegreen]

136. I wouldn't say we rule. It's more of a vague global republic with us in the executive.

Arrogant? Maybe. But it's either us, Russia, or China. India isn't powerful enough yet. Out of the three, it's best for the majority of people that it be us.

I look forward to the day, though, a democratic India joins us as equals in holding back China, and maybe someday forcing China to grant it's people freedom.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. I say we annex Canada and go to war with China.

When they invade Alaska.

[NeedleCast]

11. Worked in Fallout 3

It can work here!

[Occam Bandage]

17. Our T-51b Power Armor suits will make us invincible!

[sarcasmo]

51. Where and How Much for my Power Armor suit?

[SIMPLYB1980]

85. The Tesla Armor is even better but they make you lose charisma!

x(

[SIMPLYB1980]

86. Dup.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

87. Fuck power armor, I'm gonna be a ghoul.

Horrible, disfiguring radiation burns AND immortality.

[Brother Buzz]

93. Aren't the T-51b Power Armor suits made in China?

I'm just saying. :shrug:

[Butch350]

106. My Power Ranger Outfit came from China - or was that in China?

[davepc]

144. lol

[Romulox]

4. YES! I look forward to this happening.

I, for one, don't wish to be in a union with the Cheap Labor South any more.

[MadBadger]

5. Canada can have Alaska!

[leftstreet]

6. As long as WA state gets folded into Canada, I'm fine with it

:o

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Baja British Columbia? I'm all for it.

:hi:

[Speck Tater]

26. The Republic of Cascadia

Statistics of the Republic of Cascadia:

* Name: The Republic of Cascadia (long form), Cascadia (short form)
* Capital: Cascadia
* Area: 855,762 sq km
* Population: 14,220,981 (2005 est)
* GDP: US$323 billion (1996 est)
* Language: Cascadese (a dialect of English)
* Time System: Metric Time

The Republic of Cascadia stretches from 42° to 60° north latitude. Its western border consists of the Pacific coast and a portion of the American state of Alaska. On the east, it borders the American states of Idaho and Montana and the Canadian province of Alberta. Cascadia is divided into three prefectures: British Columbia, Oregon, and Washington.
Government:

Cascadia is a constitutional republic that guarantees its citizens their basic rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to a fair trial with a jury of peers. It has a strong democratic tradition and universal suffrage. The seat of the national government is in the capital city of Cascadia, which is tucked safely away from centers of urban decadence.

Read all about it here: http://zapatopi.net/cascadia/

[earth mom]

27. I live in the PNW. I'm in. Let's go for it!

:woohoo:

[uppityperson]

37. Looks more workable than Ecotopia was.

I'm too old to commune with the trees

[ConcernedCanuk]

50. I read two books on Ecotopia - well, just online previews - can't find the books up here anywhere

.
.
.


but VERY interesting

Ecotopia book Review

[uppityperson]

58. The theory was/is good, but the book is very dated.

amazon should have it, but maybe the book is too old? If I find a spare copy in used bookstore, will let you know and send it up to you.

[Taverner]

90. I can send you my copy if you want

Good read, but VERY DATED

For example, all the monorails run on Gravity Electromagnetism, but the power needed to run this would make it the biggest energy hog ever.

[ConcernedCanuk]

52. You're just after all that BC bud!

.
.
.

OH well, with all that weed, should be a PEACEFUL nation!

:smoke:

[Taverner]

118. There is better bud than BC bud

Just saying :P

[xchrom]

39. HEY! -- you left off coastal cali.

we're part of cascadia.

[SurfingScientist]

78. Definitely!!! Don't leave Cali behind ... SF and Santa Cruz and Big Sur...

...especially my BELOVED Santa Cruz (OMG I am homesick now!!!) :cry:

[xchrom]

91. they have a special exhibit on sea horses

at the monterey aquarium right now.

[Taverner]

117. Did you know, no matter how hard you try, you can't mount and ride a Sea Horse!

Another dream smashed :(

[xchrom]

129. no -- but you can a seabee. nt

[leftyclimber]

60. As a native Oregonian I'm all down with that idea except for the metric time part.

That's just weird.

[Blue_In_AK]

70. I have a question.

If the Alaskan panhandle (Southeast) goes to Cascadia, do the rest of us up here go back to Russia? I want to be Canada, too. :cry:

ed. Oh, wait, on reading that over again, you're excluding ALL of Alaska. Alaska is certainly more like Cascadia or Canada than like the rest of the United States. I think we should be included in your new country. We'll behave ourselves, and you can do whatever you want with Sarah.

[stevedeshazer]

126. Alaska, YT, NT & BC all belong.

I'm all for it.

[Taverner]

137. And WA, OR, CA and Baja California

!

[Broken_Hero]

143. Hey, leave the panhandle outta this one

we are going to form our own nation! Our first order of business, take over...Prince Rupert!

:hide:

[Nay]

109. I love Vancouver Island. I'd live there! Just like Ecotopia!

[patrick t. cakes]

119. a tear in my eye.

heaven.

[davidpdx]

141. I'm down with that as long as we don't have to take on any part of California

Screw them! Let them merge with Nevada and Arizona and fight for water with those states. My birth certificate may have said I was born there, but I disown that hell hole.

[mudesi]

8. Yes

Let Texas and the south form their own country.

[AmyCamus]

9. Only if I get to choose who goes.

Florida, Alabama and Texas aren't really necessary anyway.

[KansDem]

45. But, what about all those strange stories that come out of those states?

They would be "foreign" stories and therefore not as strange...

[Terry in Austin]

81. Yep, nobody here but us Texans and other furriners!

;)

[WolverineDG]

94. Neither is your state, where ever it is

Instead of bitching about us, why not get off your butt, come down here & help us turn our states blue again?

dg

[AmyCamus]

164. The states without a sense of humor go first

[maxsolomon]

10. the contiguous US is not an "empire", it's our overseas military

presence that makes us an "empire".

however, i don't feel much kinship with other regions of the USA (the south seems more foreign than Canada to me), and the PNW (washington and oregon) would make a fine country - Cascadia!

[Taverner]

13. If history repeats itself, that's the first to go

Just like the unpaid Roman Soldiers came home to find their land was all taken by the Empire...

Civil unrest...and then the whole thing dissolves

Of course some Empires just become other empires (see Spain and England)

[cali]

12. no. that's a navel gazing question.

this is not the time. when it happens, if it happens, it'll happen. Forcing it now, is a ridiculous proposition.

[Taverner]

16. Like you, I'd be willing to bet we won't see it in our lifetime

But a College Professor once asked us "Do you think the Romans knew the end was around the corner when it happened?"

[SemiCharmedQuark]

61. Yes. The decline of the Roman Empire didn't happen overnight, it was quite gradual.

[Occam Bandage]

75. One of those things that only really happened in retrospect. nt

[SemiCharmedQuark]

76. Yes.

I disagree with the notion that it just came around the corner.

It was centuries in the making.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

14. Works for me. n/t

[Renew Deal]

15. Those nations were ethnically different from each other.

That's not so much the case hear. People in the north, south, east, and west currently mostly all come from the colonies, immigrants, and some natives. The Romans, Soviets, and others were mixed up in areas that weren't ethnically theirs.

[Cant trust em]

18. I think we should kick out Texas to let in Puerto Rico. NT

[WolverineDG]

95. I think we should deep six California

They threw out a Democratic governor & replaced him with the son of a Nazi.

dg

[Cant trust em]

96. I'd be down with that.

I'm from California and I think a clean break would be great.

The Democratic Republic of California!

[Occam Bandage]

19. California is not ethnically, linguistically, or otherwise culturally different from, say, New York.

The United States "empire" is entirely one of international trade and transnational corporations. The U.S. Empire "falling" would be something like Wal-Mart procuring all its goods in the United States, Nike producing all its sneakers in the United States, and Disney only exporting its United States-made entertainment to the United States.

[stillcool]

20. we appear so fractionalized

you would think it was imminent. But appearances aren't always what they seem.

[CreekDog]

22. yes, sign us up for South British Columbia

:think:

[the other one]

24. Its inevitable.

The central gov't. will lose its ability to enforce its authority, which will lead to the rise of regional "warlords" whose power will be based on control of available resources.

I would predict 3 or 4 "United States of America" will emerge to vie for the power that currently resides in Washington. An Atlantic/New England alliance, a Southern/Midwestern alliance, and a California/Western alliance. Control of H2O resources will probably the basis for power claims.

Soon, too, most likely.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

29. This scenario would not surprise me. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Be a citizen of a 2nd rate power with no colonial ambitions?

What would we do with all the money saved not "defending" the big shots?

[Odin2005]

28. Short answer: No!... Long Answer: HELL NO!!!

And in any case the "US is like the Roman Empire and is about to fall" meme is right about the Rome comparison but get the time period completely wrong, the best comparison to the US today is the Roman Republic in the late 2nd Century BC, the period of the Gracchi. It was the Roman aristocracy's opposition to land reform, which lead to the assassination of Tiberius Gracchus, that triggered that chain of events that led to the fall of the Republic.

http://www.johnreilly.info/sf10.htm

In the midst of any painful experience, there always comes a time when one first hopes that the worst is over. The dentist seems to be about to put away the drill, you suddenly reach a part of the cliff rich with handholds which seem to lead straight to the top. These expectations rarely turn out to be justified: the dentist has put down the drill to find a knife to cut the gum, the handholds are friable slate that lead to an overhang. Still, the delusion is a relief while it lasts, and in certain situations it may revive your enthusiasm sufficiently for you to make some real progress. In rather the same way, this period of history is characterized, not so much by the belief that all problems have been solved, but by the renewed hope that progress is possible. The world system is obviously still changing, indeed doing so at a faster rate than in the previous period. Still, it seems to be headed toward an acceptable condition, one that can be realized with no major disjunctures. Predictably, it is the very successes achieved under these misapprehensions which inspire the folly and carelessness that eventually require a later age of discipline.

In the earlier regions of modernity, imperial expansion had usually been accomplished with the enthusiastic support of the popular party. The military, especially in conjunction with conscription, had become one of the great equalizers of citizens. More to the point, it permitted populist politicians to use the state to despoil the resources of the traditional aristocracy. During the annihilation wars and reforms of two generations ago, this connection had become far more tentative, since the enormous personal cost of a forward national strategy was eventually brought home to every family. In the previous generation, foreign adventure had become more of a cause of the patrician classes than otherwise. Distant wars for subtle objectives could still be mounted, but the enthusiasm of the people could be engaged, if at all, only by invoking xenophobic themes and justifying the operations with platitudes. The effect was to remove serious discussion of foreign policy questions from the public arena.

This political configuration changed quite dramatically during this period. The engine for the new expansion was precisely popular enthusiasm. This was made possible by the fact that, as had been true a century and a half before, most people did not have to be concerned with military affairs if they did not want to be. The adventures of armies could be followed with the sort of detached goodwill usually reserved for favorite local sports teams. Even more important, the material advantages of these activities, whether in the form of lots of cheap slaves or a lowered cost of consumer goods, tended to dampen principled objections.

Again, every civilization is unique, so that the proportion of economic advance to military conflict is different from example to example. In Islam and China, the military element predominated, though the command economy of Ch'in prospered mightily from that nation's string of ever easier military successes. In Egypt and the West, the expansion was far more economic. Indeed, aside from actual changes in military potential, the most significant feature of the period for the West was the return of the United States to almost the position of economic predominance which it had held after the Second World War. Egypt, as it recovered from the disaster of the Hyskos Period, dealt with the rest of the world in this phase of its history primarily through border skirmishes. Even so, it was quickly developing a system of trade and tribute to the south and east.

The West, on the other hand, developed a science of conducting short, annihilating, brushfire wars, designed to achieve clear and limited objectives. Ideally, these could be conducted anywhere in the world at a few days' notice. When conceived and implemented according to strict criteria, these efforts were invariably successful. Their purpose, at least in theory, was to regularize the environment for the new international economic system which came into effect among already developed countries. Though the point was not always fully appreciated at the time, this meant seeking to ensure, everywhere in the world, that minimum security of person and property which is necessary for the operation of a market economy. In practice, of course, the strict criteria for these police wars were often set aside for reasons of American domestic politics. Still, the general effect was to make foreign and domestic policy mutually reinforcing.

As tends to happen in any system involving positive feedback, tensions were building which would eventually make the new modus vivendi untenable. Though submerged for most of this period, the conflict between the "patricians" and "plebeians" experienced by mature civilizations sometimes flares up during this epoch. "Plebeians," of course, despite their self-designation and their propaganda, represent neither "the people" nor the national interest. "The people" in reality is simply an abstract image of the population, one that leaves out the peculiar characteristics and mutual hostilities found among actual human beings. In Rome, "the people" included persons who owned several slaves, and who were often richer than the ancient families of the senatorial class. Politicians of all stripes tended to also be financiers, usurers, and commodity speculators. There is, in fact, a strong link between democracy and money wherever they appear. The "people" are the new class, whether they are bureaucrats chosen by merit in the State of Ch'in, the "symbolic analysts" of the West, or resourceful military men of no background who appear everywhere.

As a rule, these groups can be kept in harmony, or at least in a state short of civil war, as long as prestige and material benefits are open to both kinds of people. There are exceptions, of course. The attempt by the Gracchi brothers of Rome to proscribe the persons and confiscate the goods of large sections of the senatorial class was the first whiff of the political chaos which eventually destroyed the Republic. This episode, however, represented the hightide of truly ideological politics. The Gracchi were, after all, regularly elected officials. Indeed, the elder brother organized what may have been the only truly representative election in Roman history. The demagogues which followed them, whatever offices they might hold, sought formless power as the leaders of mobs. Though "the people" usually win the struggle of modernity, principled popular government does not survive this period.

There are, after all, other things for ambitious people to think about. Conquered lands and foreign markets and the wonderful possibilities for arbitrage available at the center of the world have the effect of resigning people who otherwise would think little of each other to cooperate in one imperial adventure after another. Eventually, because the accessions of wealth and power promote change and opportunity, entrepreneurship becomes associated more with the popular party than otherwise.

As the international system, and the domestic system of the nucleating nation, move into the final stage, the social space which can be occupied by the most successful necessarily narrows. This is because, in a unified world, local success becomes devalued. Anyone can be rich, many people can be famous, but only one man can be king. By this time in a civilization's history, it begins to become apparent in just what this "kingship" might consist. In the West and China, it is in the nature of a revival of a tradition of immemorial unity. In the former, the primitive "universal state" was the Holy Roman Empire; in the latter, it was the early Chou Dynasty. Indeed, this period marks the first time since the beginning of modernity that anyone dared lay claim to the unoccupied throne, under whatever form of words. The claim is indignantly rejected by the whole world, but the prospect can never be withdrawn. Whether the universal monarch is thought of as the permanent president of a council of princes, or as the popular (new class) dictator of the nucleating state, or as the conductor of the concert of nations, the goal has become clear.

With the prize in view, it can become the object of conscious ambition. When policy is made from ambition rather than on the merits, mistakes are far more likely. Sometimes, there are mistakes about who the realistic contestants are. In China, the State of Ch'i organized a futile alliance to forestall the ambitions of Ch'in, as the European Community did in the later West. Both ended on a farcical note. More important is the decay of political discipline in the nucleating state. It is always an illusion to think that you can reach the top of a social structure by eliminating all your rivals in turn. Since such a structure is a pyramid of living bodies, one finds that eliminating its constituent members, even if only from public life, has the effect of destroying the pyramid, apex and all. However, this is rarely apparent at the time. In this epoch, in fact, domestic politics becomes what all believe to be a zero-sum game. Note that this occurs precisely at what seems to be the moment of maximum international security, because internal business need no longer be deferred in the face of a hostile world. In the next period, policies based on this misplaced confidence in the safety of the international system have predictable results.

The last block of bolded text shows EXACTLY what the Neo-Cons are up tp.

[Terry in Austin]

79. Appreciate the historical perspective

It's ignored all too often.

The OP seems to be offering a policy proposition, as though a breakup of the US could be the result of a deliberative decision. Even though there is a little bit of movement toward "devolution" in Britain -- more local autonomy for Scotland, for example -- it seems unlikely that much of that will happen here in any deliberate way, however much there may be to recommend it.

Much more likely, IMO, is just the sheer inability to keep the show going at the scale it has been. In the face of severe energy decline over the next generation or so, maintaining a continental-scale, centrally-governed enterprise like the US will be more and more untenable, and arguably, more and more pointless.

Time goes on, and eventually the paradigm shifts. Or devolves, as the case may be.

[Odin2005]

88. Thanks!

You're totally right the the broad historical perspective is usually ignored. Partly, I think, this is the result of policy-makers thinking that getting what they want is about sheer will, geopolitical facts and long-term historical trends, patterns, and cycles be damned. The US is coming to play the same role Rome took on in the 2nd century BC and the Persians took on in the 6th century BC, a state on the fringe of it's civilization expanding and bring stability to that civilization after several centuries of militarism and class warfare tearing the civilization apart, becoming what British historian A. J. Toynbee called a "Universal State". The Roman Empire and the Persian Empire founded by Cyrus the Great were Universal States, as was Han Dynasty China, the Ottoman Empire, the Abbasid Caliphate, the Classical Indian Empire of Ashoka, the Mughal Empire, Japan, the Inca Empire, Russua, and the Egyptian Middle Kingdom. In a universal state a new religiously-based proletarian worldview develops that acts as the seed form which a new civilization is born after the Universal State collapses

[Terry in Austin]

92. Universal State

I'll resist matching this up with the initials of a certain country we all know and love, because Toynbee has some serious ideas that deserve to be taken as such. I admire any scholar like him who tries to find some kind of pattern, cycles, whatever, in history, because the alternative is to regard history as "just one damned thing after another," and I for one have a hard time accepting that premise.

Another guy who develops a more or less cohesive model for history is Immanuel Wallerstein, one of several historians and political economists of the "Braudel School." He traces the succession of hegemonic powers, their rise and fall, and how they do so in a predictable way within the context of the prevailing world-system. Each of the latter seems to last roughly 500 years, the current one being the capitalist/nationalist world-system.

I find it a pretty interesting model, particularly since the capitalist/nationalist world system is just about 500 years old, and this could account for some pretty interesting times!

[Odin2005]

131. Interesting, I'll have to read up on him, Thanks!

I too don't like the "one damned thing after anther" view of history, which attracted me the the ideas of Toynbee, Oswald Spengler, and Caroll Quigley in the first place. Spengler is interesting because he wrote a lot about each civilization having a unique "ethos" and with that ethos it's own distinct take on art, science, philosophy, and religion. I disagree with Spengler's strict determinism and his assertion that civilizations have pre-determined lifespans, I instead subscribe to Caroll Quigley's model:

1. Mixture
2. Gestation
3. Expansion
4. Age of Conflict
5. Universal Empire
6. Decay
7. Invasion

According to this model a civilization is open-ended as long as it keeps developing new instruments of expansion, if it fails to develop a new instrument of expansion, usually because of the vested interests of established elites, it falls into the Universal State phase, from which point it is merely living off of old wealth and is destined to decline and collapse.

[Terry in Austin]

150. Quigley

Hadn't heard of him before, but his stuff looks interesting. Did a quick wiki on him, but it's obvious there's a lot more there for getting some teeth into. Big influence on Big Dawg Clinton, apparently. Pretty cool...

Thanks!

[Odin2005]

156. You're welcome. Oh, and I ran into an online version of Spengler's "Decline of the West"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4654238/Decline-of-the-West-Volume-I-Form-and-Actuality-by-Oswald-Spengler
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4654389/Decline-of-the-West-Volume-II-Perspectives-of-World-by-Oswald-Spengler

He starts in his introduction with a fascinating tour of how different civilizations thought of historical time. The West and Ancient Egypt have a very strong sense of historical time while Graeco-Roman and Classical Indian cultures did not. It is quite shocking how unconcerned with the past the Greeks and Romans were, after a few generations much was forgotten and what remained was remembered as myth. Spengler then talks about how our traditional Eurocentric conception of history with the 3-part Ancient-Medieval-Modern template comes from the Judeo-Christian-Zoroastrian-Islamic tradition of divinely-influenced history (what he calls "Magian") that was transformed into the Western notions of apocalypse, progress, and revolution.

[DireStrike]

138. This is fantastic, been reading for an hour now lol

I love history, except for the precise knowledge of dates required.

[Odin2005]

139. Yes, that website ate a day out of my life when I first found it, LOL.

[T Wolf]

30. This is something I absolutely support. This country is far too big and diverse to

function effectively as a unified political unit.

The benefits of dissolution are many:

1) the connection of the governed to the government would become more direct.

2) it would be a great opportunity to test the "competing" political philosophies - let rethug-ruled states have their rules and laws and let Democratic-governed have ours.

3) at this point in history, there is no reason that a unified US is needed for self-defense against enemies from outside the country.

4) though eventually the humans on this planet will have to learn to live together, we are not that evolved yet. better to foster advancement on a smaller scale that we might be able to manage.

5) as with corporate entities, if it is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. the rationalizations of the save-the-banks approach from the Democratic government would have less validity. thus, the argument that the US (as currently formulated with its corporate emphasis) must continue to do the same things that created the world-wide financial crisis so the the country will not drag down the entire world with it would also be greatly weakened.

6) we would not have to be plagued with the idiots and bigots and assholes that have ruined things so completely.

The only downside is that the US Olympic team would win fewer medals. That I would willingly live with. Truth be told, the excessive nationalism of the "games" has turned me off since I was a child.

[cali]

44. what is it with indulging silly pipe dreams?

there's nothing in history that backs up your contentions. And if the blue states formed into several nation stats and the red states did the same, we, in the blue states would have to budget big for defense against those assholes.

[Kalyke]

47. "we would not have to be plagued with the idiots and bigots... that have ruined things"

Yes you would.

Rural areas are red - in nearly every state - and urban areas are blue - in nearly every state.

You'd still have idiots and bigots and assholes no matter where you live.

ALL STATES ARE PURPLE.

Nashville=Blue, Memphis=Blue, hell the city of Knoxville is blue (but not the county of Knox), but Tennessee is red.
Atlanta = blue, but Georgia is red.

Essex County, VT = Red, but the state was blue.

So forth and so on.

[cali]

57. um, no. Essex County went for Obama last year

it's a weird place, but it's not longer red. In fact, there are no red countries in Vermont.

[Tesha]

62. If this were true, how would you explain why...

equal marriage is becoming the law in New England
but is still anathema in, say, Dixie?

All states may be purple, but that Massachusetts
purple is a 'way different color than that Alabama
purple!

Tesha

[FudaFuda]

31. What geographic division(s) would you suggest?

Racial demographics in the USA are currently not 'lined up' along red-blue lines as much as most might guess. The midwest, west coast, northeast and southwest don't really have too many blacks. The eastern half of the US doesn't really have too many hispanics. Who would you suggest cutting out of your utopic nation? Asians live almost exclusively on one coast or the other -- is one coast's Asian population more desireable than the others'?

No, its not only about race. But you can't even have this conversation without considering it. A mass migration of all 'blue staters' to one half of the US and all 'red staters' to another half is impossible. People just don't move that much.

Check out the maps at www.censusscope.org

[AlinPA]

69. I'm not sure if I support the idea (we are mostly a "purple" country), but

when I think of the recent election and the hatred we saw, this map gives me ideas about how it might be split. There are huge differences in how Americans see their country and maybe most of the people in the areas in red on this map would be happier with a split. The hatred by conservatives is getting to be serious and is growing from I can see. So maybe they will initiate it.

http://countenance.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/the-red-delta-map/

[hfojvt]

84. that map is centered in Arkansas

Arkansas voted more Republican in 2008 than it did in 2004, because they voted against Obama because he beat their girl Hillary in the primaries. It was backlash from beating the "favorite daughter".

[Spike89]

32. Some real positives, but even bigger dangers

Sure, smaller countries carved from the US would be able to function with less compromise, react more quickly, and better represent their people. However, the danger is that no matter how the borders are drawn, or treaties signed, there would be disputes. Of course, my new nation of Cascadia would be blameless, but we'd simply have to preemptively attack and destroy California (or whatever they call themselves). Failure to do so would just ensure they eventually come to steal our womenfolk, our resources, and our secret treasures.
We don't have the military to overtake California outright, so we'd have to make a deal with Texas, which of course would bring Oklahoma into the battle on California's side. Maine would about this time have managed to get the New England consortium on board with its historical grudge against Oregon for have a Portland that surpassed its own. In the middle of this highly confusing war, Florida and a few other southern states would begin randomly bombing everywhere, just to get attention.

[terisan]

33. Big states do not have sufficient representation in Senate; We do not have

sufficient reporting from or control over representatives at all levels of government.

Yes it is time to change the structure or make the one we have more effective and efficient.

Regionalization might help but not if it adds a new layer of opaque government and corrupted politicians.

[specimenfred1984]

34. Yes, the South should be "Bootstrapsistan"

The welfare Southern states should secede and try living without America's handouts, they should live by their own words and "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".

[Kalyke]

49. What about the west - they're far more needy that we Southerners.

[Tesha]

132. Sorry, but the net tax flows don't support your argument.

The South is a leech sucking on the rest of the country.

Tesha

Resources:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x735400
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8229012/Tax-Donor-or-Contrib-States

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Actually a better case can be made for Roman Empire => Turkey

The Ottomans ended what was left of the Roman Empire, (although they claimed to be the third version) but that was almost 1,000 years after Italy was conquered by germanic tribes.

[FudaFuda]

38. I think the Czars had the better claim. But yep - most ignore Byzantium.

If you take the Russian connection to the Byzantine emperors as a third incarnation of the Roman empire, the Roman empire didn't really end until 1917. That's a stretch for most westerners, but not for eastern Euros and Russians. The Kievan Rus was a devoted satellite of Byzantium, and emulated Byzantine culture in just about everything. When Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453, the Russians felt they were the last bastion - and they were basically right. The czars even adopted the double eagle of Byzantine emperors for the Russian royal crest.

sorry. love to talk about that subject. not really on-point though. :hi:

[Warren Stupidity]

77. Me too. The circle from the ancient to the modern is fascinating.

[XemaSab]

40. No

We're doing okay as one people.

[RoyGBiv]

41. No

[xchrom]

42. north carolina gets to go with the civilized universe! nt

[derby378]

46. No freakin' way

I say we hold together and show the rest of the world how it's done.

[WeDidIt]

48. Do DUers come up with some of the stupidest shit ever known to man?

The answer to my question would be yes.

The answer to your question would be ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR EVER LOVING MIND?????

[slackmaster]

53. Didn't you get the memo? It's already split...

[KamaAina]

89. Some of those boundaries don't agree with Joel Garreau's original map

on the cover of "The Nine Nations of North America", which addressed this issue nearly 30 years ago.



Superimposed over the current state and provincial lines:



It'd be interesting to see how he'd revisit the boundaries today, in terms of new immigration, out-migration from California, the VA part of suburban DC expanding into Dixie, etc.

edit: Garreau treated NYC, DC, and Hawai'i in a chapter called "Aberrations". I might also expand the Islands northward into the Gulf to clip off New Orleans as a border town with Dixie.

[ConcernedCanuk]

54. Furgot my short answer - YES

.
.
.

[Tuvok Obama]

55. As long as Texas and Florida are two of the states that leave

:hide:

[WolverineDG]

97. We'll leave after Washington State does

Must be nice to live in a blue state where all you have to do for the Democratic cause is sit behind a computer drinking coffee & bitch about Texas & Florida...must be too much work to get off your duff & go to those states & help elect Democrats.

dg

[a la izquierda]

104. Lol

as someone who grew up in NJ and spent her formative early adult years in CA, I agree completely. I live in Oklahoma now. I'm so tired of people bitching about where I live. The town I live in: it's becoming a fair trade town, because of grassroots activism.

[WolverineDG]

147. Congratulations!

:hug:

dg

[Tuvok Obama]

140. I kid ... because I love

And for the record, Washington State is not the nice place it used to be.

Unless one considers meth addiction, chronic tardiness, and bad drivers to be nice.

[WolverineDG]

146. Then work on making WA a better state instead of bashing Texas

I don't think it's funny, but then I'm actually having to work to turn this state blue (me & the other DUers from Texas) & we're getting really tired of being on the receiving end of "jokes" & "kidding" from blue staters.

dg

[Tuvok Obama]

149. I apologize for the insult

It was meant as a lighthearted joke.

However, you seem to have adopted the impression that I don't work hard for the betterment of my own community. That's not true.

[WolverineDG]

151. Texas bashing never was a "light hearted joke"

There are many of us down here in the trenches doing what we can & taking it on the chin from the local republicans. It would be nice not to have to put up with the same sort of BS on DU of all places.

dg

[Tuvok Obama]

155. I said it was meant as a lighthearted joke, and that means

it was meant as a lighthearted joke, regardless of how you choose to take it.

The fact that my apology means nothing to you speaks volumes about this board and how it has turned into a goddamn snake pit. "It would be nice not to have to put up with the same sort of BS on DU of all places"? Please. DU is a far cry from a sanctuary, and you've reinforced that sad fact in this sub-thread.

[WolverineDG]

159. Blame the victim, or in this case, the butt of your joke

Just lovely. Truly spoken by someone who has no clue what it's like to have BS flung at you constantly from both sides, including those who claim to be Democrats & liberals.

dg

[Tuvok Obama]

160. Oh, I do know what it's like

You've made two claims about me now, both of them completely baseless:

You've decided I do nothing to try to improve my community, and that I have no idea what it's like to be attacked from more than one direction at the same time.

Or have I mistakenly given you the impression that I skate through life at the expense of others?

I tried to apologize. I'd do it again, if I thought it would help, but it has become clear that it wouldn't.

[Tesha]

59. YES! New England would be much better off independent, merged with Canada, or

Firmly aligned with the European Union.

I suspect Cascadia/Ecotopia feels the same way
'cept that they might choose pan-Pacific aliances
instead of the EU.

Tesha

[old mark]

63. Since Rush is evidently moving to Texas, let's give it back to Mexico,

and just annex Canada - their Queen likes us, you know!
Oh, and give Alaska to Russia.


mark

[WolverineDG]

98. Why don't we give your state away?

I don't think we need lazy Dems who do nothing but bitch about other states instead of offering to help them elect Democrats.

dg

[old mark]

148. No one wants it. We have one of the dirtiest state legislatures in the

US.

mark

[DonCoquixote]

64. As someone who helped turn Florida blue

It is nice to know that so many would like to throw Southern Democrats to the dogs. Way to thank people in Florida and North Carolina that put up with years of crap only to gain some progress.

[Taverner]

72. I noticed that too - I didn't intend South Bashing with this thread

Its one thing to note the news stories that come out places like TX that make our collective jaws drop in unison. Its quite another to paint all of the South as Freeperland.

I was thinking something more along the lines of a 5 part split, based on culture, industry and other factors.

But I don't advocate a forced split, but just wonder if a split is down the road somewhere...

[WolverineDG]

99. Not all of Texas is Freeperland either

but it's soooooo much easier to sit at your computer & trash it than it is to come here & give us a hand.

dg

[Taverner]

101. Texas is not Freeperland - but you have to admit, there have been strange stories out of TX and FL

It may be media bias, but the stories have been there

I mean no slam on TX

But the sensationalist media, whether an accurate portrait of TX or not, has given us a ton of "Crazy TX and FL" stories.

[Freddie Stubbs]

66. Rome and the USSR were not as culturally homogeneous as the USA

Most Americans consider themselves to be Americans, while during the Roman era most of those living in the Empire were not even citizens. The USSR was an amalgamation of many ethnic groups which was held together by force.

[Taverner]

71. And might I add (which furthers your point) that despite the amalgamation in the USSR

Assimilation was discouraged

[LeftinOH]

67. NO

..and anyway, USSR was 'officially' fifteen countries (and several other less-recognized entities) held together *by force*.

[Papagoose]

68. Not yet

I need to move out of GA first!

[L. Coyote]

74. Only if the rich can have all the public land.

That way they won't have wasted the EFFORT BREAKING UP THE COUNTRY TO STEAL ALL THE LAND.

[NutmegYankee]

100. No. We are more like France - We are one nation.

I think we are more like France, in that, even if our government fell through some horror, we as a nation would remain intact under the new government.

[Taverner]

102. Toqueville used to call us Brittish France

[NutmegYankee]

103. The other thing that changed from Roman times is Ideas

Nationalism is a powerful force in the modern world, and the US is basically linked together by our culture and nationalism. Most empires of the past had neither in their favor.

[Taverner]

107. Rome was about an idea

Thats how they sold it to nearby provinces (many provinces joined Rome by choice during the Kingdom era)

Granted, it wasn't as complex as Americanism. But it was about an idea.

[NutmegYankee]

111. But much of the empire was held together by force.

Many other cultures went along only because of military might and having lost the wars. As the empire collapsed, those cultures broke free while other groups rampaged in on the soft core. Sucked to be Roman in 410 and 476 AD.

[Taverner]

113. Yes, yes it was

Such is the nature of Empire

The US is much the same

Do you know in the US's early history, there were an entire "Indian" tribe made up of Runaway Slaves, Runaway Indentured Servants (Irish Slaves) and Native Americans survivors from decimated tribes?

Check out "A People's History of the US" by Howard Zinn. It is mindblowing.

[B Whale]

128. Rome was generally not held together by force but choice

it was acheived through force but was very beneficial to its inhabitants financially and stability. Similar to the British empire for its middle period.

[B Whale]

115. In a few decades or centuries probably. But not now, it

is one of the mots unified countries in the western world.

Don't forget all european nation states came out of uniting or conquering smaller nations. Most have remained stable with a few exceptions.

I think that demographics may change that but that may be a hundred years and the US may be a pointless small power by then anyway.

[Taverner]

120. Europe is one country. They need to get used to that.

Sure, there is a different language everywhere you go, but it is one country. It should function like one.

[B Whale]

123. Can't see any basis for that comment what so ever

In fact i would contend that the complete opposite is true.

Europe is viewed as one place by america, but here it couldn't be more different.

Each country has a distinct and ancient culture untouched by one another for thousands of years. It is true that civilisation as we know it and democracy, culture etc came frome Europe, but to say its one country is fairly bizarre.

(Even though i'm a big supporter of the EU)

[Taverner]

124. Europe is one culture

Yes there are differences between the UK and Poland - but in the long run, the UK and Poland have more in common than the UK and America. Seriously.

[B Whale]

127. Absolute nonsense.

Culturally, because of its birth the US is very similar to the UK. Australia is also very similar to the UK, like argentina is similar culturally to spain. To say spain and the UK are closer the america and the UK or australia and the uk is utter nonsense.

View the world in millenia not decades and you may get the idea.

[Butch350]

105. Sounds likeThe Time Travel Tale of John Titor.

[dysfunctional press]

108. how about we just let the old confederacy HAVE the name 'united states'

and the rest of us will become part of canada.

[lib2DaBone]

110. 40 years of CONservative values=poison

40 years of screwing workers and rewarding uber wealthy.. IT DIDN"T WORK.

8 years of enabling and promoting right wing evangelical nut cases.. not good.

We may have to round up all the stupid fucking Christian Fundie nut bags.. and put them in their own State where they can destroy each other.

The Republic of Jesus-Stan.

[Taverner]

114. South Carolina. I only say this because there is a movement afoot

To make SC into a Theocracy

[KoKo]

125. I left SC when Ernest Hollings was our Best Hope... I went to NYC for Opportunity..

(Hollings was the best hope for SC...but look at some of what he stood for...yet, at that time in SC it was considered "FAR LEFT." :eyes: Anyway...he was our OBAMA for those of us who lived there as kids at that time. (As I said...most of us left there and moved on)

Right Democrat: A Mainstream Populist Voice

Our goal is to create a new Democratic majority based on concern for working families, common sense and mainstream values.

Former Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) talks about America's economic crisis and how to solve it in a column at the Huffington Post.

Hollings writes:

The United States has always paid for its wars. For 200 years we paid for the Revolution, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, even LBJ's Great Society, and had yet to reach a national debt of $1 trillion -- until 1982. Now our government in the past eight years has borrowed, spent, and added to the national debt $5 trillion.

The Congressional Budget Office reported that in the first four years of the Bush term, deficits were caused by: 48% tax cuts, 37% wars, and 15% increased spending. We kept the government on steroids during the Bush years and household debt of $7 trillion joined the binge.

By the time Obama took office the Federal Reserve had injected another $2 trillion steroids. With $14 trillion stimulation, we were losing jobs like gangbusters. Stimulation was not working. Last year we stimulated exactly $1 trillion, $35 billion, and lost jobs. According to the Secretary of the Treasury, we have a deficit or stimulated the economy $960 billion this fiscal year (3/16/09) and are still losing jobs.

Last night, Ben Bernanke on 60 Minutes said he saw light at the end of the tunnel at the end of the year. So any more stimulation is politically out of the question. So the government, like households, should hunker down, stop spending where it can, and plug the hole of offshoring jobs in the ship of state.

The need to act now and for the long haul is to dismiss Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner to be replaced by Paul Volcker and Jared Bernstein.

Plug the hole of offshoring and raise revenues for the government we provide by:

1. Enacting a 10% value added tax to be effective the first of next year. It will take the rest of this year for the Internal Revenue Service and business to gear up for a VAT. But even in these lean times a 5% VAT would bring in $700 billion; and once we start operating in the black, we can let up on corporate and middle income taxes. The VAT is double-whammy. It will not only help us pay our bills, but eliminate the 17% Chinese VAT as an inducement to offshore to China.

2. Cancelling the tax benefit to offshoring.

3. Immediately quota automobile imports. In the last eight years we've caused Detroit a trillion dollar competition in foreign subsidized car imports. Bailouts for GM and Chrysler will be wanting next year when cheap Chinese hybrids start coming in.

4. Globalization is nothing more than a trade war with production looking for a country cheaper to produce. Globalization is not going away, but governments have to compete. Economically, our government is at a "comparative disadvantage" in international trade. We insist on industry providing a high standard of living, but refuse to protect industry when it does. We stupidly cry "free trade." If any in Washington thinks China is going to engage in free trade, they need custodial care. At present, we couldn't go to a real war if we wanted to because we would have to wait for the troops' equipment to be imported. Activate the Secretary of Commerce's list of those items critical to our national security by exacting tariffs or quotas.

5. Start developing an industrial policy. We want to keep markets as open as possible, but Chinese, Japanese and Korean competition in globalization won't permit it. We can keep trying; but a measured industrial policy will be necessary, using our country's production and rich market to open world markets. At present, our production and rich market is in disrepair, needing rebuilding. We have an industrial policy for domestic commerce like anti-trust, provisions against price fixing, etc. But we need an industrial policy for foreign commerce like agricultural quotas. This will put America back to work and save our economy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-ernest-frederick-hollings/now-and-for-the-long-run_b_175343.html

Link with information on Senator Hollings new book titled Making Government Work.
http://www.sc.edu/uscpress/2008/3760.html

Ernest F. "Fritz" Hollings has enjoyed a remarkable career in public service as a South Carolina legislator (1949–1954), Lieutenant Governor (1955–1959), Governor
(1959–1963), U.S. Senator (1966–2005), and U.S. presidential candidate (1983–1984). A visionary workhorse, Hollings has focused throughout his career on putting government on a sound financial basis and promoting economic development to create opportunities. Recognized as a policy expert on the budget, telecommunications, the environment, defense, trade, and space, he is the author of the Coastal Zone Management Act (1972), the Ocean Dumping Act (1972), and the Automobile Fuel Economy Act (1975) and coauthor of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act (1985). Hollings led in the creation of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children in 1972 and passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
P

[DevonRex]

116. Hell no. Just forbid republican procreation. That'll take care of everything

in 1 generation.

[KoKo]

121. I think it will be "Regional" many decades from now...when it all splits up.

Interesting Post...but most of us won't be here to see it. :shrug: But, I can see either the AMERO for Currency where we link with SA,CA and US all together or something were America breaks apart.

Way far down the road, as I said, where most of us won't be here to see it.

[Taverner]

122. Agreed - it is definitely down the horizon

Say what you will, but hundreds of years from now, this will definitely happen, if not sooner...

[New Dawn]

130. Yes, I support independence for the Bible Belt.

[santamargarita]

165. Me too, but it would have to surrounded by a moat stuffed with...

alligators!

[BlooInBloo]

134. (facepalm)

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

[bridgit]

145. yes

[aquart]

152. Are people taking stupid pills today?

Yeah, now would be the perfect time to become Europe while Europe is becoming the United States.

[Orsino]

153. It's only fair...

...given the number of other nations we've torn apart.

But, seriously, I don't see an advantage to any sort of split now. Secession/revolution isn't going to happen without a lot of people dying.

[Taverner]

163. Or via bankruptcy

Lets just say the US couldn't afford to keep its renegade states

It might just opt for a diplomatic solution - we are all going broke right now, except for the folks going "Galt"

[LanternWaste]

154. No. The way I perceive it...

No. The way I perceive it, it's non-geographical issues that divide us. Texas has more in common with North Dakota than it does Arkansas. California is light years from Nevada in form, function and state voting records.


If that is indeed the case, how does one split the U.S. based on everything BUT geography other than the ineffective, inefficient manner of packing up entire populations and moving them-- much like when Pakistan and India separated.

[WilliamPitt]

157. No.

[muryan]

158. Think I stumbled onto a freeper thread

The south will rise again?

Seriously if you are suffering so much from bunker syndrome that you can't stand the idea of populating the same country as an ideological opponent, you're probably better off leaving. The rest of us will be better off

[Taverner]

162. Who said that - that's fucked up

That is my big problem with the eventual concept

[Tuvok Obama]

161. I think I want to change my answer:

"No."

:D